More verbal diarrhea from Pinocchiobama. The Iraq war started in 1990 and has been ongoing ever since, in various degrees of intensity. How realistic is it to put belief in the words of a man who has misled and lied to the American people since way before he was elected?

What has been achieved? On the downside:

1. A net loss of $1.5 Trillion and more to the US economy, and contribution of the war(s) to the economic downturn at home.
2. The deaths of 5000 US troops, with many more thousands maimed for life. A continuing cost of $10s of billions to treat injured troops, for years after the war officially "ends".
3. The deaths of anything between 100,000 and 1.2 million Iraqi civilians, and the destruction of essential Iraqi infrastructure, much of which never got fixed. Widespread littering throughout the Iraqi countryside of unexploded bombs and cluster munitions which are still killing and maiming innocent people, mostly children.
4. Mass pollution of land and ground water by radioactive "depleted" uranium throughout Iraq, especially in S. Iraq, essentially for ever. (DU is an alpha-emitter with a half-life of over 4 billion years).
5. Worldwide distrust as regards the US government and its intentions. A greatly enhanced risk of retaliation and revenge attacks against US interests both at home and overseas.... middle easterners don't forget as quickly as we "attention-deficit affected, instant-gratification-addicted" westerners.

On the "upside":

1. Astronomical size profits for oil, "defense", security and surveillance corporations, many of whose senior executives have very close relations with powerful figures within the US government.
2. Our old thug-buddy Saddam Hussein was deposed and executed. The dictator is dead, long live the dictator.

That pretty much covers it.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

President Obama’s speech formally declaring that the last 43,000 U.S. troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year was designed to mask an unpleasant truth: The troops aren’t being withdrawn because the U.S. wants them out. They’re leaving because the Iraqi government refused to let them stay.

Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq but had instead spent the past few months trying to extend it. A 2008 security deal between Washington and Baghdad called for all American forces to leave Iraq by the end of the year, but the White House -- anxious about growing Iranian influence and Iraq’s continuing political and security challenges -- publicly and privately tried to sell the Iraqis on a troop extension. As recently as last week, the White House was trying to persuade the Iraqis to allow 2,000-3,000 troops to stay beyond the end of the year.

Hmmm. Does the US really give a rats ass about what the Iraqi puppet government wants? If the US had intended for troops to stay there, then that is what would have happened. Perhaps the Joint Chiefs got on Obama's case and told him that all as many troops as possible troops are required for possible military action against Iran, a far bigger potential challenge than Iraq ever was.

The DC Neocons and ultra powerful Israeli lobby has had war against Iran as part of their agenda since 1999/2000, and they have been foaming at the mouth to "get Iran" since 2006/2007, when the Iraq operation started winding down..

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

Hmmm. Does the US really give a rats ass about what the Iraqi puppet government wants? If the US had intended for troops to stay there, then that is what would have happened. Perhaps the Joint Chiefs got on Obama's case and told him that all as many troops as possible troops are required for possible military action against Iran, a far bigger potential challenge than Iraq ever was.

The DC Neocons and ultra powerful Israeli lobby has had war against Iran as part of their agenda since 1999/2000, and they have been foaming at the mouth to "get Iran" since 2006/2007, when the Iraq operation started winding down..

I hope I'm not proved wrong, but I think the US knows all too well that war with Iraq is off the table. We'll see: millions of dead Americans...I don't think the US is that stupid.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

I hope I'm not proved wrong, but I think the US knows all too well that war with Iraq is off the table. We'll see: millions of dead Americans...I don't think the US is that stupid.

Don't you mean Iran? Although war against Iran would be a very tough call (if the same methods that were used in Iraq were employed), there's always the false flag option... a time tested, simple and effective way of getting the (US) public to support such.

If enraged enough, a first strike against Iran using nuclear weapons to obliterate their military and inflict total 'shock and awe' the population would be an acceptable (or even lobbied for) option. Think of the ratings on the networks... the first nuclear air strike to be televised live. Let's kick some real Iranian butt... Yee-haaaw!

Large number of troops would be employed to restore order afterwards. After a major nuclear strike, there would likely be little opposition.

Where there is a will, there is a way... and when dealing with psychopaths, anything might happen.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

Don't you mean Iran? Although war against Iran would be a very tough call (if the same methods that were used in Iraq were employed), there's always the false flag option... a time tested, simple and effective way of getting the (US) public to support such.

If enraged enough, a first strike against Iran using nuclear weapons to obliterate their military and inflict total 'shock and awe' the population would be an acceptable (or even lobbied for) option. Think of the ratings on the networks... the first nuclear air strike to be televised live. Let's kick some real Iranian butt... Yee-haaaw!

Large number of troops would be employed to restore order afterwards. After a major nuclear strike, there would likely be little opposition.

Where there is a will, there is a way... and when dealing with psychopaths, anything might happen.

Yes i did mean Iran, sorry!

Now I'll continue reading your post...

I don't know what could or might happen, but I think the potential for biological and chemical attacks from Iran is up there, to put it mildly. My hunch is they'd see no no gain in letting that tech go unused.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

As long as we are over there, I think Iran will do whatever it can to protect its sovereignty and defend its interests. It's foolish to assume otherwise.

If we get out of their face, I think they'll back down.

If the roles were reversed, I'm sure we would resent it if they were constantly meddling in our affairs and invading and occupying our neighbors.

Yeah...but they're in die or "try" mode regardless.

I'll leave it there. Too much in that one to yabber on about for me.

Do you think Iran can carry out a massive biological attack on the US?

I see this as historic...I'm really worried about the US. In apple speak "this changes everything..(Again)... maybe not in relation to the NA's...but this may be the biggest attack for your "invaders".

I think the US is right on the edge of something devastating...again I'm worried... I hope it doesn't happen.

People need to protest Iran attack more than ANYTHING ELSE right now.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Do you think Iran can carry out a massive biological attack on the US?

That's unrealistic. Iran has no history of first strikes against anyone in recent centuries, even nations in the region, including Israel... The logistics required for Iran to successfully carry out "a massive biological attack on the US"... even if the most extreme of their fundamentalist clerics supported such, would be impossible, unless they had developed technology far in excess of what even we have.

However... it would be a very simple operation to unloose Sarin or some other weaponized chemical/biological agent on the New York subway, (similar to what the Japanese sect Aum Shinriko did in the later 1990s in Tokyo), and blame "Iranian terrorists". If I, or numerous others have thought of that, or similar, you can bet that THEY have as well, and years before. A few thousand more deaths in New York or perhaps another major city, and most people would be baying for all-out revenge (nukes etc). Anyone asking awkward questions if the story didn't pan out properly would be lambasted for a lack of patriotism, or even "aiding the enemy". We've been there before, and people forget very quickly.

Quote:

see this as historic...I'm really worried about the US. In apple speak "this changes everything..(Again)... maybe not in relation to the NA's...but this may be the biggest attack for your "invaders".

I think the US is right on the edge of something devastating...again I'm worried... I hope it doesn't happen.

People need to protest Iran attack more than ANYTHING ELSE right now.

I am with you there. It's been 10 years of relative calm here at home, and the temptation to shake things up again must be quite a carrot for the psycho-crew.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

That's unrealistic. Iran has no history of first strikes against anyone in recent centuries, even nations in the region, including Israel... The logistics required for Iran to successfully carry out "a massive biological attack on the US"... even if the most extreme of their fundamentalist clerics supported such, would be impossible, unless they had developed technology far in excess of what even we have.

However... it would be a very simple operation to unloose Sarin or some other weaponized chemical/biological agent on the New York subway, (similar to what the Japanese sect Aum Shinriko did in the later 1990s in Tokyo), and blame "Iranian terrorists". If I, or numerous others have thought of that, or similar, you can bet that THEY have as well, and years before. A few thousand more deaths in New York or perhaps another major city, and most people would be baying for all-out revenge (nukes etc). Anyone asking awkward questions if the story didn't pan out properly would be lambasted for a lack of patriotism, or even "aiding the enemy". We've been there before, and people forget very quickly.

Comparing the subway attacks to Iran's potential is wishfull thinking...but also dangerous because it makes you mute.

I am with you there. It's been 10 years of relative calm here at home, and the temptation to shake things up again must be quite a carrot for the psycho-crew.

Comparing the subway attacks to Iran's potential is wishfull thinking...but also dangerous because it makes you moot. Indestructable is not somethiing we have a monopoloy on.

Quite what Iran can do in that area is unknown, but it's nothing to dismiss so casually as you did and as is true for practically every side of political opinion amongst us "regular folks".

Complacency is effectively blind allegiance to war... to death. I'm not saying that neccesarily about you or anyone else, but in the scheme of things, it's not unfair to say... as a jonni Mitchell song had the lyrics..."you don't know what you've got till it's gone".

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

More verbal diarrhea from Pinocchiobama. The Iraq war started in 1990 and has been ongoing ever since, in various degrees of intensity. How realistic is it to put belief in the words of a man who has misled and lied to the American people since way before he was elected?

What has been achieved? On the downside:

1. A net loss of $1.5 Trillion and more to the US economy, and contribution of the war(s) to the economic downturn at home.
2. The deaths of 5000 US troops, with many more thousands maimed for life. A continuing cost of $10s of billions to treat injured troops, for years after the war officially "ends".
3. The deaths of anything between 100,000 and 1.2 million Iraqi civilians, and the destruction of essential Iraqi infrastructure, much of which never got fixed. Widespread littering throughout the Iraqi countryside of unexploded bombs and cluster munitions which are still killing and maiming innocent people, mostly children.
4. Mass pollution of land and ground water by radioactive "depleted" uranium throughout Iraq, especially in S. Iraq, essentially for ever. (DU is an alpha-emitter with a half-life of over 4 billion years).
5. Worldwide distrust as regards the US government and its intentions. A greatly enhanced risk of retaliation and revenge attacks against US interests both at home and overseas.... middle easterners don't forget as quickly as we "attention-deficit affected, instant-gratification-addicted" westerners.

On the "upside":

1. Astronomical size profits for oil, "defense", security and surveillance corporations, many of whose senior executives have very close relations with powerful figures within the US government.
2. Our old thug-buddy Saddam Hussein was deposed and executed. The dictator is dead, long live the dictator.

That pretty much covers it.

Give it a rest.You are more depressing than Michael Savage.I guess your ass was never in a war most likely. Just talk.

You people bitch and moan about Obama's policies I sincerely doubt any of you can do much better than he is doing now by trying to do the right thing as being President which is not an easy position to hold.

Support your president or else you don't support the troops? Remember that shit? I remember it clearly.

You might not have voted for the man, but he's your president! Show some respect! Remember that shit? Yeah, I remember it clearly too.

I wonder if Cindy Sheehan had decided to camp out in front of Obama's instead if she'd be hailed as the new folk hero of the right today? I suspect she would.

Using the budget as a cudgel against the war effort is un-American and seditionist by nature! Remember that argument? Yeah, me too.

Spreading democracy across the Middle East is the right thing to do? Remember that one. Yeah, me too.

Good times. Especially now that the right sounds like a bunch of fucking hippies.

You're high. Are you claiming that the right is somehow immune from the political implications of their own actions?

The reason the left took so many hits on the war issue is because they acted hypocritically. You don't vote FOR a war and then declare that because you think the President lied about it, you are going to withhold funding for adding armor plating to Humvees to make a principled point.

If you think someone on the right is doing that, withholdind funding for a war effort after they voted to approve it, bring it forward and I'm sure everyone will be consistant on the matter.

Also are you claiming that Bush ran as a person who would end Pax Americana and bring the peace dividend home to spend domestically and lower the deficit? That is exactly the platform that Obama ran on.

You people bitch and moan about Obama's policies I sincerely doubt any of you can do much better than he is doing now by trying to do the right thing as being President which is not an easy position to hold.

Boy the Bush detractors seemed to think it was so easy that only Bush could fuck it up. Now the BPE (best president ever) is failing but only because it's a hard job.

Suddenly the word "nuance" is Republicans new best friend. Remember that word? It's the word Bush/Cheney destroyed John Kerry with.

"Nuance" was for pussies, remember?

Now "nuance" suddenly means something. Jesus, there isn't a single Republican tenant or component of their orthodoxy that they won't sell wholesale just to win an election.

Kerry destroyed himself with his dopy presence. "Reporting for duty", where he runs on his military record he gained just before trashing the US military before congress with reports that he didn't witness. Unfit for duty is more like it. Pure limousine liberal.

Suddenly the word "nuance" is Republicans new best friend. Remember that word? It's the word Bush/Cheney destroyed John Kerry with.

"Nuance" was for pussies, remember?

Now "nuance" suddenly means something. Jesus, there isn't a single Republican tenant or component of their orthodoxy that they won't sell wholesale just to win an election.

Again, what the hell are you talking about? Kerry ran on a contradiction from the get go. He was a military hero who condemned the military. He was an anti-war candidate who was reporting for duty. He voted for the war, declared it unjust and then declared he would run the war better than Bush.

There isn't any reasoning to that nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack

Kerry destroyed himself with his dopy presence. "Reporting for duty", where he runs on his military record he gained just before trashing the US military before congress with reports that he didn't witness. Unfit for duty is more like it. Pure limousine liberal.

Exactly!

Now Northgate, Obama had a very clearn and understandable message. He ran on it but did not follow it. He said we were fighting the wrong war and needed to stop being the cop for the world. He declared that he would bring the troops home and use the peace dividend to help extend health insurance to more people with modest health reforms. (No health mandate, remember that one!)

He has done nothing of the sort and tonton can hopefullly remember the thread where before he had even taken office I noted that he would do nothing different from Bush because Pax Americana is not a new position and it is not a liberal or conservative position.

Support your president or else you don't support the troops? Remember that shit? I remember it clearly.

No. It was "don't call the President a liar and a loser and claim the war is lost...all while hundreds of thousands of troops are deployed."

Quote:

You might not have voted for the man, but he's your president! Show some respect! Remember that shit? Yeah, I remember it clearly too.

I actually agree with that. I simply think Obama has done a very poor job overall. I also don't like many of his demonstrated personal qualities. I find him arrogant, angry and divisive. I also disagree with his political vision/philosophy. That doesn't mean I don't respect the office. It doesn't mean I'm to start calling him a loser.

Quote:

I wonder if Cindy Sheehan had decided to camp out in front of Obama's instead if she'd be hailed as the new folk hero of the right today? I suspect she would.

I fail to see the connection. Conservatives are not usually prone to that kind of thing.

Quote:

Using the budget as a cudgel against the war effort is un-American and seditionist by nature! Remember that argument? Yeah, me too.

The Republicans haven't done that. In fact recently, the Democrats are the ones who blocked the President's jobs bill. His first budget failed 97-0 in the Senate.

Quote:

Spreading democracy across the Middle East is the right thing to do? Remember that one. Yeah, me too.

I still agree with that in principle. I just think if we're going to use military force to spread democracy, we need to do it. What we did in Libya was half-assed. Now, they are going to have a government that follows Sharia law. The Administration's position on Libya was incomprehensible. First it was NATO, then it was us. First we lead, then we followed, then we led. First it was about saving towns from annihilation, then it was about pushing Qadaffi out, then it was about killing or capturing him. Then it was "we came, we saw, he died." First it was days not weeks, then it was months not years. First we had no ground troops, then we had some ground troops but not really. And now he's taking a victory lap. The whole thing reminds me of the "What Do You Think" section of The Onion, where one man exclaimed "Yeah! We Did it! Didn't we?"

Quote:

Good times. Especially now that the right sounds like a bunch of fucking hippies.

That's a real stretch.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

"A few days after 9/11, a retired Air Force colonel named Randall Larsen entered the northwest gate of the White House, crossed a courtyard to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, stepped through the front door and stopped dead in his tracks.

In place of the usual security checkpoint, there was an elaborate upgrade that included not only metal detectors but also machines to sniff out radiation and explosives, elaborate pat-downs and a mandatory search of all personal belongings. It was the search that worried Larsen most.

After passing through a body scan, he stood quietly while a guard thumbed through the contents of his briefcase. It was mostly books and papers, but after a few seconds, the agent pulled out a respirator mask and shot Larsen a quizzical look. Thats just for demonstration, Larsen said quickly. You saw Mayor Giuliani wear one at ground zero, right? The agent turned the mask over a few times, then stuffed it back in the briefcase. Seconds later, Larsen was through.

Inside the building, he followed a long corridor to a room where Vice President Dick Cheney and members of the national-security staff soon joined him. Also in the room were Tara OToole, who is now the Obama administrations top official for biodefense research at the Department of Homeland Security, and Thomas Inglesby, who runs the Center for Biosecurity. Three months earlier, Larsen, OToole and Inglesby collaborated on a national-security exercise to simulate the effects of a smallpox attack. Now, with the twin towers in ashes, they had come to brief the vice president on their findings.

As OToole began the presentation, Larsen studied Cheneys expression. The vice president showed no reaction as OToole listed the officials who participated in the simulation, the complications they encountered as they tried to develop an emergency response and the arguments that broke out as they watched the disease spread beyond control. She concluded by telling the vice president that the country was unprepared for a biological attack.

Cheney nodded. O.K., he said. But what are we looking for? What does a biological weapon look like?

At this, Larsen reached into his briefcase and pulled out a small test tube. Mr. Vice President, he said, it looks like this. Inside the tube was a weaponized powder of Bacillus globigii, almost genetically identical to anthrax. And by the way, Larsen said, I just smuggled this into your office.

Randall Larsen, who first smuggled a tube of weaponized powder into the meeting with Dick Cheney 10 years ago and went on to become the executive director of the Congressional Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction said: Today, there are more than two dozen Senate-confirmed individuals with some responsibility for biodefense. Not one person has it for a full-time job, and no one is in charge.
~ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/ma...nted=1&_r=1&hp

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

"A few days after 9/11, a retired Air Force colonel named Randall Larsen entered the northwest gate of the White House, crossed a courtyard to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, stepped through the front door and stopped dead in his tracks.

In place of the usual security checkpoint, there was an elaborate upgrade that included not only metal detectors but also machines to sniff out radiation and explosives, elaborate pat-downs and a mandatory search of all personal belongings. It was the search that worried Larsen most.

After passing through a body scan, he stood quietly while a guard thumbed through the contents of his briefcase. It was mostly books and papers, but after a few seconds, the agent pulled out a respirator mask and shot Larsen a quizzical look. Thats just for demonstration, Larsen said quickly. You saw Mayor Giuliani wear one at ground zero, right? The agent turned the mask over a few times, then stuffed it back in the briefcase. Seconds later, Larsen was through.

Inside the building, he followed a long corridor to a room where Vice President Dick Cheney and members of the national-security staff soon joined him. Also in the room were Tara OToole, who is now the Obama administrations top official for biodefense research at the Department of Homeland Security, and Thomas Inglesby, who runs the Center for Biosecurity. Three months earlier, Larsen, OToole and Inglesby collaborated on a national-security exercise to simulate the effects of a smallpox attack. Now, with the twin towers in ashes, they had come to brief the vice president on their findings.

As OToole began the presentation, Larsen studied Cheneys expression. The vice president showed no reaction as OToole listed the officials who participated in the simulation, the complications they encountered as they tried to develop an emergency response and the arguments that broke out as they watched the disease spread beyond control. She concluded by telling the vice president that the country was unprepared for a biological attack.

Cheney nodded. O.K., he said. But what are we looking for? What does a biological weapon look like?

At this, Larsen reached into his briefcase and pulled out a small test tube. Mr. Vice President, he said, it looks like this. Inside the tube was a weaponized powder of Bacillus globigii, almost genetically identical to anthrax. And by the way, Larsen said, I just smuggled this into your office.

Randall Larsen, who first smuggled a tube of weaponized powder into the meeting with Dick Cheney 10 years ago and went on to become the executive director of the Congressional Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction said: Today, there are more than two dozen Senate-confirmed individuals with some responsibility for biodefense. Not one person has it for a full-time job, and no one is in charge.
~ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/ma...nted=1&_r=1&hp

Holy Crap.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.